Rate this:

Share this:

Like this:

Related

This entry was posted on September 12, 2012 at 12:24 pm and is filed under Campaign Ads, Jim Matheson, Mia Love. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

8 Responses to “Mia Love: Putting Utah values first”

“Utah values” are always undefined but assumed to be superior to all other values. Look, if you want to lower the National Debt, then make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. It’s as simple as that.

@Richard why does it ALWAYS come back to tax increases. Why not eliminate the MASSIVE FRAUD, Bailouts, layer after duplicitous layer of bureaucracy in social programs, insane public benefits, politician health care and pension plans, insane military budgets (mainly contractors) and foreign aid.

Making wiser use of the money we pay in taxes now and eliminating unwise deficit forcing programs makes much more sense first.

With three consecutive property tax increases, it seems Love is very much in tune with the big government and high taxation of “Utah values” as we know them to be. Somehow through all the conservative rhetoric Love offers, Love fails to understand that property tax is property theft and a violation of our natural rights.

In her limited government experience, Love has proven herself a failure in guarding of the Constitutionally-protected, divinely endowed inalienable rights of We the People.

I cannot support people who want public office who have defiled my natural rights and that includes both Love and Matheson.

I’ll answer that. Because you fallaciously assume that fraud and bailouts are massive parts of the federal budget. If you did any reading and research, you’d learn that the bulk of the budget is social security, medicare, defense, and medicaid.

We can’t fix our budget problems with a program of just budget cuts unless we want to eliminate programs that are literally the difference between life and death for huge segments of our population. We can’t cut the budget without gutting social security and medicare for the elderly, or without jeopardizing national security by major defense cuts.

Now what part of that do you not understand?

Most tea-party people are either ignorant or brainwashed. Its amazing to me the nonsense that I continually hear spouted.

BTW, my prediction is both Romney and Love are gonna lose. Let’s wait and see.

Well, Richard, you’ve caught the spirit of the Obama campaign: “It’s against the law for you to go over to your rich neighbor’s house and take his stuff, but if you vote for Obama the government will do it for you.”

So you think they should pay more? Maybe we should just execute the rich or something…

The real problem is that the federal government continues to make promises with respect to “entitlements” that are unrealistic and simply can’t be kept. The first step is to stop making those kinds of promises.

For example, the Social Security retirement age in 1935 was 65 and the average life expectancy was 61.7. Now the retirement age for youngsters is 67, but the life expectancy is 78.7. You do the math – it can’t work. It simply isn’t possible to raise enough revenue through taxes to pay ridiculous benefits and expect to have any economy left, mostly because workers and investors will be totally disincentivized.

Pops– Thanks for weighing in. Did you know that if Congress does nothing to alter current law, according to the Congressional Budget Office the return to Clinton-era tax rates will balance the budget within a few years? That includes the social safety net programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Good to see our marxist buddies MarkG and Dick WARnik are still here. You two are perfect examples of what is WRONG with our nation. As I asked you two years back, If you ha te Utah (our politics and culture and people) so much, why dont you move to KKKalifornia?